Wait. Some unicorns poop rainbows is negated to No unicorns poop rainbows and is shown as (U->/PR). Wouldn't it be shown as /U->PR? This doesn't make total sense to me.
wait so are "some," "most, "many," quantifiers also conditionals? i.e. is "some unicorns dont poop rainbows" a conditional statement? or is it something completely different #help
So negating isn’t saying no to the argument, it’s just saying “you forgot to look at it this way.” If you’re saying “it’s not the case that some unicorns poop rainbows,” then what you’re saying is there are no unicorns that poop rainbows. If not some, then none. You can’t say “if not some then most” because that’s not negating but adding onto the original claim. You can’t say “if not some then all” because again, that’s saying more than what the claim gives you evidence for.
Instead, negating is just saying “aha you forgot that there are some unicorns that DON’T poop rainbows!” A better view, for me, of negation is not “denying” or “negating” the original claim, but thinking of the possibilities that the claim didn’t originally consider.
What is an example of a question type we will encounter where having the negation of an intersection question is going to help us identify the correct answer?
I still have a question. Do "all" statements always negate differently than group 1 conditional indicator statements? From my understanding of the material, this is how an all statement negates:
A some arrow /B
And this is how a conditional statement negates:
A and /B
But I think where I'm still confused is whether these are interchangeable since all is a group 1 indicator? I just want to know, if I see a group 1 indicator or an all statement on the LSAT, which translation I should use to get the right answer of if using either is fine.
#feedback I wish there was a diagram at the end of this lesson with all the conditionals and their negations. It would be helpful to have an overall visual comparison.
When talking about JW -m→ E, it says: "It could be true that as many as all Japanese whiskeys are expensive."
But earlier it was presented that all→most. #help
1
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
64 comments
So would the negation of Most Japanese whiskeys are expensive.
JW -m→ E be:
Zero to exactly half of Japanese whiskeys are expensive?
Wait. Some unicorns poop rainbows is negated to No unicorns poop rainbows and is shown as (U->/PR). Wouldn't it be shown as /U->PR? This doesn't make total sense to me.
all is negated to some, some is negated to either all or none, and most is negated to 50% or less
wait so are "some," "most, "many," quantifiers also conditionals? i.e. is "some unicorns dont poop rainbows" a conditional statement? or is it something completely different #help
I just want to wish everyone the knowledge and determination to master all of this content and crush the LSAT!!
So negating isn’t saying no to the argument, it’s just saying “you forgot to look at it this way.” If you’re saying “it’s not the case that some unicorns poop rainbows,” then what you’re saying is there are no unicorns that poop rainbows. If not some, then none. You can’t say “if not some then most” because that’s not negating but adding onto the original claim. You can’t say “if not some then all” because again, that’s saying more than what the claim gives you evidence for.
Instead, negating is just saying “aha you forgot that there are some unicorns that DON’T poop rainbows!” A better view, for me, of negation is not “denying” or “negating” the original claim, but thinking of the possibilities that the claim didn’t originally consider.
Very Helpful!
Helpful summary!
Is "few" a negation of "most"?
can it be true to say that 'some' includes 'many' and 'all' and when negating they will all revert back to the same negation of 'none'?
What is an example of a question type we will encounter where having the negation of an intersection question is going to help us identify the correct answer?
What's the difference between a negation and a contrapositive?
Sometimes I feel like I learn more from the comment section.
I still have a question. Do "all" statements always negate differently than group 1 conditional indicator statements? From my understanding of the material, this is how an all statement negates:
A some arrow /B
And this is how a conditional statement negates:
A and /B
But I think where I'm still confused is whether these are interchangeable since all is a group 1 indicator? I just want to know, if I see a group 1 indicator or an all statement on the LSAT, which translation I should use to get the right answer of if using either is fine.
#feedback Can you translate the negation of the word "rarely" (not rarely) to "frequently"?
#help isn't 'few' another intersection relationship?
#feedback I wish there was a diagram at the end of this lesson with all the conditionals and their negations. It would be helpful to have an overall visual comparison.
confused why the some negative isn't the same as in previous lesson:
Original: P ←s→ C
Negated: /(P ←s→ C)
Negated: P → /C
Am I missing something? how the excerpt above become incorrect negation for unicorns and poop example?
What is the difference between a conditional statement that is negated vs its contrapositive? I'm having a hard time grasping the two concepts.
#feedback #help
is this the correct negation of the most stamens provided as an example?
EX: Most Japanese whiskeys are expensive
original: Most J are E
negated: anywhere from 0 to half of J are E
English: anywhere from 0 to half of japeNeese whiskeys are expensive
#help
for the part that says "Negated: No unicorns poop rainbows. U → /PR" why isnt it /U->PR?
Can someone give another explanation for the difference between conditionals and intersections? The one provided here still confuses me. Thanks!
Any reason why the last example is not negated?
Would it be correct for the negation of U --> PR to be /U --> PR? #help
When talking about JW -m→ E, it says: "It could be true that as many as all Japanese whiskeys are expensive."
But earlier it was presented that all→most. #help